In a significant development, the Madras High Court delivered a split verdict on the detention of YouTuber ‘Savukku’ Shankar under the Goondas Act. Justice GR Swaminathan, one of the judges on the bench, disclosed that he faced intimidation from “highly placed persons” who pressured him not to proceed with the case. Despite this, Justice Swaminathan decided to hear the habeas corpus petition filed by Shankar’s mother, A Kamala, challenging his detention.
Split Verdict Details
Justice Swaminathan quashed the detention order, citing procedural lapses and noting that the order did not reflect Shankar’s arrest in five cases, which negated the necessity for preventive detention. He emphasized that Shankar’s actions did not disturb public order to the extent required for detention under the Goondas Act【133†source】【137†source】.
On the other hand, Justice PB Balaji dissented, arguing that the state should be given the opportunity to file a counter affidavit before making a decision on the habeas corpus petition. This split decision has led to the case being referred to Acting Chief Justice R Mahadevan, who will appoint a third judge to resolve the matter【133†source】【135†source】.
Judicial and Public Reactions
Justice Swaminathan’s revelation about being pressured adds a critical dimension to the case. He stated that if he had followed the standard procedure and allowed for additional time, it would have played into the hands of those trying to influence the judiciary. His decision to proceed with the hearing underscores his commitment to judicial independence and transparency【136†source】【137†source】.
The case has drawn considerable attention due to the involvement of high-profile figures and allegations of custodial violence against Shankar. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has been directed to investigate these allegations within four months【135†source】.
Conclusion
The ongoing legal proceedings in the Savukku Shankar detention case highlight the challenges and pressures faced by the judiciary in high-stakes cases. The outcome of the third judge’s decision will be crucial in determining the legal standing of Shankar’s detention under the Goondas Act and addressing the broader issues of judicial independence and procedural fairness.